list_workflows

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which gives some signal, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result sorting, whether it returns empty lists vs errors, or performance characteristics for potentially large workflows. Adequate but thin for a listing tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, no wasted words. It's efficient and front-loaded with the verb. Could argue it's slightly under-specified rather than concise, but the single-sentence structure is clean.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one fully-documented optional parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, no output schema means the description should hint at what the response contains (workflow names, metadata, etc.), and it doesn't. The tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap, but it could benefit from noting what fields appear in results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter agentType is fully described in the schema ('Filter workflows by agent type') with an enum. The description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List all available Anubis workflows' uses a clear verb (list) and resource (workflows), but it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_workflow (singular) or manage_workflows. 'Anubis' adds minimal context. It's clear but lacks differentiation from the management/crud siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There's no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer get_workflow, manage_workflows, or auto_detect_workflow instead. The optional agentType filter is discoverable via schema but not contextualized.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.